Flying Saucers do not exist.

[mike]

Mike,
Reality does not exist apart from the relationship between cognition and consciousness. .

Reality existed 1 second after the big bang, long long loooooong before cognition and conciousness came into being.

Ive observed this with your methodology before.

You do it bassackwards.

You come up with a theory and then attempt to make the data/evidence fit that theory.
Thats bad methodology, and invariably when you come across facts that dont fit, you are forced to try and discredit them.

The correct way is to assess all the facts/data/evidence and formulate a theory that encompasses them all.

There is a right and wrong way to do this

Ive quoted the wiki on reality, it clearly states its independant of observation


reality

1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:

1. 
   Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist

It should be a matter of common sense that reality existed imediately after the big bang, long before conciousness or cognition.

In order to maintain your theory that it doesnt, you have to ignore these facts and cling to your premise as a matter of faith, because it fails the scientific method of testing.

 

[manxman]

Mike, reality only exist's in the mind, there is no reality without consciousness, and one more thing, you say reality began with the big bang.

My question is ''which one ? '' or are you assuming theres only ever been one.

 

[mike]

Mike, reality only exist's in the mind, there is no reality without consciousness, and one more thing, you say reality began with the big bang.

My question is ''which one ? '' or are you assuming theres only ever been one.

You are confusing reality with perception,

Perception
The question of direct or "naïve" realism, as opposed to indirect or "representational" realism, arises in the philosophy of perception and of mind out of the debate over the nature of conscious experience;[2][3] the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain. Naïve realism is known as direct realism when developed to counter indirect or representative realism, also known as epistemological dualism,[4] the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world.
Timothy Leary coined the influential term Reality Tunnel, by which he means a kind of representative realism. The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental filters formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets the same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". His ideas influenced the work of his friend Robert Anton Wilson.


or is the wiki entry wrong when it says


Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist

Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question on the big bang is a seperate discussion, It may have been just the once, or it may be a cycle of big bang followed by a big crunch then another big bang etc etc.

But for the sake of this discussion let me be more specific, one hour after the current universe came into being after the current big bang, did reality exist ?

Its a yes or no question, Did reality exist one hour after the (current) big bang

 

[manxman]

quote
The question on the big bang is a seperate discussion, It may have been just the once, or it may be a cycle of big bang followed by a big crunch then another big bang etc etc.

But for the sake of this discussion let me be more specific, one hour after the current universe came into being after the current big bang, did reality exist ?

..........

We dont know what reality is mike, thats my point.
We dont know if this universe is the only one, infact we have no idea what 'reality' is, under those wiki definitions, we just guess the same as you are doing, and wiki isnt published by ''god''.

We dont even know the big bang is reality, if we did we could drop ''theory'' out of the ''big bang theory''.

I think you have to die first, then you understand.

 

[Azz7092]

Think this guy needs to check his facts before he judges ,but i can understand frustration and wanting to find the answers but all you get is more questions but at the end of the day people want actual evidence not just stories im being devils advocate here as i have seen loads of UFO activity im a beliver/sceptic i know that doesent make to much sense but to me it does lol

 

[mike]

quote
The question on the big bang is a seperate discussion, It may have been just the once, or it may be a cycle of big bang followed by a big crunch then another big bang etc etc.

But for the sake of this discussion let me be more specific, one hour after the current universe came into being after the current big bang, did reality exist ?

..........

We dont know what reality is mike, thats my point.
We dont know if this universe is the only one, infact we have no idea what 'reality' is, under those wiki definitions, we just guess the same as you are doing, and wiki isnt published by ''god''.

I think you have to die first, then you understand.

It doesnt matter if there was only one big bang or a cycle of them, the question is does reality exist independant of cognition and would apply in this or any other version of the universe.

This philosophy is very much like religion in its ego centric view the universe as all about us

Transcendental idealism, founded by Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century, maintains that the mind shapes the world we perceive into the form of space-and-time.
... if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of representation.
— Critique of Pure Reason A383


You cant be seriously postulating that if we remove the thinking subject, the whole universe will vanish ?

It existed long before us, and would do so long after we are all gone, its independant of observation as the wiki entry on reality says.

Now it is true that just because its in the wiki doesnt mean its correct, but that argument is not sufficient to prove it is the case in this example. you must give facts that counter the entry and can be tested.


We all live in a reality tunnel shaped by our own sensory abilitys and filters thats true, But its a snapshot of a larger reality thats independant of cognition.

Reality with a capital R started right after the universe came into existance and long before conciousness and cognition were there to take snapshots of it.

You can take a photograph of a mountain, a snapshot of it. you cannot have that snapshot without the mountain, but the mountain does not need that snapshot to exist. Its independant of the camera

And i'll bring you back to the question Manx, did reality exist one hour after the current big bang ? Yes or No

 

[manxman]

quote
You cant be seriously postulating that if we remove the thinking subject, the whole universe will vanish ?


.........

Im saying the universe will cease to exist mike, if there is no consciousness to perceive it.

ps
I dont hold much store in semantics or philosophy, they are just 'well dressed' opinions, the reality is without consciousness, nothing exists.

 

[mike]

You cant be seriously postulating that if we remove the thinking subject, the whole universe will vanish ?

im saying the universe will cease to exist mike, if there is no consciousness to perceive it.

We can test this hypothesis by answering the question did it (the current universe) exist one hour after the current big bang yes or no ?

 

[manxman]

We cannot answer that mike, as we DONT KNOW the big bang actually happened, if we did know then science would drop the theory tag.

 

[mike]

We cannot answer that mike, as we DONT KNOW the big bang actually happened, if we did know then science would drop the theory tag.

The new image, called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), should offer new insights into what types of objects reheated the cold, dark universe about one billion years after the big bang, when stars first started to shine, about 13 billion years ago. The image reveals some galaxies at distances until now too faint to be seen even in Hubble's previous faraway looks, called the Hubble Deep Fields (HDFs), taken in 1995 and 1998.
"Hubble takes us to within a stone's throw of the big bang itself," said Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, and the HUDF project lead.

NASA - Hubble's Deep View of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies


So..... did those galaxys "exist" 13 billion years ago ? Yes or No.

 

[manxman]

Hubble takes us to within a stone's throw of the big bang itself," said Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, and the HUDF project lead.

Opinion mike, not reality.

Personally i will take some convincing that everything in existence, every atom, just sprang into existence in a blinding flash in a split second.

Those atoms existed, somewhere.

Where did it all come from mike ?.
Was it magic, theres nothing, no void no space no space time, nothing, not even space itself, then boom, theres everything, like some cosmic magician pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat in the blink of an eye.

 

[mike]

Cosmology is the study of the beginning and evolution of the universe.
The big bang
It is now generally agreed among both astronomers and physicists alike that the Universe was created some 10 to 20 billion years ago in a leviathan explosion dubbed the "Big Bang". The exact nature of the initial event is still cause for much speculation, and it's fair to say that we know little if anything about the first instant of creation. Nevertheless we do know that the Universe used to be incredibly hotter and more dense than it is today. Expansion and cooling after this cataclysm of the Big Bang, resulted in the production of all of the physical contents of the Universe which we see today. Namely: light in the form of "photons"; matter in the form of "leptons" (electrons, positrons, muons) and "baryons" (protons, antiprotons, neutrons, antineutrons); more esoteric particles like "neutrinos" and perhaps some exotic "dark matter" particles; and the subsequent formulation of the Universe's first chemical elements.
The concept of the Big Bang was not immediately obvious to astrophysicists, but rather grew out of a steady accumulation of evidence gathered from both theoretical and observational research throughout the course of the 20th century. A wide range of theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe were eventually discredited and superseded by the Big Bang hypothesis based upon the following critical considerations:

• the current expansion, or Hubble flow, of the Universe.
• the observed helium and deuterium abundances.
• the cosmic background radiation.
• the cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations.
• agreement between various independent estimates of the age of the Universe.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB).

 

[manxman]

Im done here mike, ive listened to your opinions, im not convinced, sorry.

Anything more will just become repetitive.

 

[mike]

Hubble takes us to within a stone's throw of the big bang itself," said Massimo Stiavelli of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, and the HUDF project lead.

Opinion mike, not reality.

Personally i will take some convincing that everything in existence, every atom, just sprang into existence in a blinding flash in a split second.

Those atoms existed, somewhere.

Where did it all come from mike ?.

We still dont know

Looking back to the dawn of time
Only a century ago, the origin of the Universe was a topic where reliable experimental data was lacking. The situation is quite different now. Cosmology, the science that aims to explain how the Universe formed and evolves, has since grown into one of the richest and hottest fields of experimental research.

Key discoveries made during the last eight decades show that in the past the Universe was far denser and hotter than it is today, and that it started to cool and expand — a process that is still going on today — about 13 700 million years ago. This version of events, known as the Big Bang theory, is currently the most accepted scenario. But the picture is still far from complete. Questions such as what triggered the birth of the Universe, or how it will evolve in the future, remain unanswered.

Why the microwave / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

But we do know it exists.

The case for the Big Bang
Planck will measure the fluctuations of the CMB with an accuracy set by fundamental astrophysical limits.

In the 1920s, astronomers discovered that the Universe hasn’t always existed as we see it today. It is in fact continuously expanding. This means that all the matter and energy that it contains was packed into a much smaller and hotter region in the past. This was the first piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory of the formation of the Universe.

Later, scientists learnt that stars are the 'factories' that make most chemical elements in the Universe, including oxygen, carbon and iron. But certain elements must come from elsewhere — those few elements were produced in the earliest epochs of the Universe, when it was still very hot.

These findings formed the basis for the Big Bang theory, but it gained wide scientific support only when the next clue was discovered. In 1964, two researchers accidentally detected radiation coming from all directions in the sky, a uniform glow pervading the Universe. This radiation is the relic of the Big Bang itself.
These three clues supported the theory that the Universe has always been expanding, so there must have been an initial period during which all existing matter and radiation were tightly coupled together in a high-temperature mixture.
With time the Universe cooled down, and at some point it must have reached a temperature low enough for the radiation to be decoupled from matter. Light would then have travelled freely throughout the Universe for the first time. That 'first light' should still be detectable today, and it was, in fact, the glow detected in 1964.
This relic radiation from the Big Bang is called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It is an important piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory which has not been studied to its full potential.
Why the microwave / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA


We dont know everything, but we know a lot. But not knowing everything isnt the same as knowing nothing

But this is distracting us from the point being debated, that is reality being independant of observation.

So back to the question big bang (the generally accepted theory) or not, did the universe exist one hour after

 

[mike]

This is very important

Later, scientists learnt that stars are the 'factories' that make most chemical elements in the Universe, including oxygen, carbon and iron. But certain elements must come from elsewhere — those few elements were produced in the earliest epochs of the Universe, when it was still very hot.

The stars existed before the elements neccesary for life and thus cognition.


Can we agree on this ?

 

[manxman]

Cosmology is the study of the beginning and evolution of the universe.
The big bang
It is now generally agreed among both astronomers and physicists alike that the Universe was created some 10 to 20 billion years ago in a leviathan explosion dubbed the "Big Bang". The exact nature of the initial event is still cause for much speculation, and it's fair to say that we know little if anything about the first instant of creation. Nevertheless we do know that the Universe used to be incredibly hotter and more dense than it is today. Expansion and cooling after this cataclysm of the Big Bang, resulted in the production of all of the physical contents of the Universe which we see today. Namely: light in the form of "photons"; matter in the form of "leptons" (electrons, positrons, muons) and "baryons" (protons, antiprotons, neutrons, antineutrons); more esoteric particles like "neutrinos" and perhaps some exotic "dark matter" particles; and the subsequent formulation of the Universe's first chemical elements.
The concept of the Big Bang was not immediately obvious to astrophysicists, but rather grew out of a steady accumulation of evidence gathered from both theoretical and observational research throughout the course of the 20th century. A wide range of theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe were eventually discredited and superseded by the Big Bang hypothesis based upon the following critical considerations:

• the current expansion, or Hubble flow, of the Universe.
• the observed helium and deuterium abundances.
• the cosmic background radiation.
• the cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations.
• agreement between various independent estimates of the age of the Universe.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB).

Ive got this to add mike, ''reality'' began when the first concious entity, recognised its own existence, with humans it started the first time an ape recognised its own reflection, and became aware of ''the self''.

Now thats my opinion, right or wrong.

 

[mike]

Ive got this to add mike, ''reality'' began when the first concious entity, recognised its own existence, with humans it started the first time an ape recognised its own reflection, and became aware of itself.

No again youve confused reality with perception


Perception began when the first concious entity, recognised its own existence

The reality is those stars which formed the elements that we are made of existed before us

Those stars came first, they didnt need conciousness to exist, this should be easy enough to grasp

 

[manxman]

Mike i 'grasp' quite easily what you are saying.

I just dont agree, nothing existed before consciousness, reality only comes into existence thru consciousness, thats what i think.

Now i really am done ta, i can see how clear cut it is for you.

 

[mike]

His statement sums up the fact that the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms in our bodies, as well as atoms of all other heavy elements, were created in previous generations of stars over 4.5 billion years ago. Because humans and every other animal as well as most of the matter on Earth contain these elements, we are literally made of star stuff, said Chris Impey, professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona.
All organic matter containing carbon was produced originally in stars

Are We Really All Made of Stars?

Thus the "reality" is those stars existed before organic life. independant of observation and cognition

 

[mike]

So we are back to a simple yes no question which will either prove or disprove the hypothesis reality cannot exist without conciousness.

Did those stars exist ? Yes or No ?